DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, NORTHERN RAILWAY, ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER Vs. LABOUR COURT, ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed by Divisional Manager, Railways, the question is if the Labour Court committed any error of law in allowing claim of opposite party for payment of house allowance admissible to him daring the period he was posted at Kanpur and further direct the petitioner to refund penal house rent charged from opposite party for retaining quarter at Allahabad. Admittedly petitioner was employed as a driver and was posted at Allahabad where a railway quarter was allotted to him on Rs. 33.46. From 15 June 1966, and then from 26 Dec. 1968 to March 1976, he was posted at Chunar and Kanpur respectively. During the entire period, he, however, retained his quarter at Allahabad. For this retention penal rent was charged from him and it was deducted from his salary every month without any objection. But since retention was against circular letter of the railways the petitioner charged enhanced rent for this period and opposite party does not appear to have raised any objection in respect of penal rent during the entire period he was in service. After retirement he filed application under S. 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act praying that amount deducted from his salary during this period may be refunded to him as it was illegal deduction. It was also claimed that during the period he was posted at Kanpur he was not given any house allowance. The Labour Court found that deduction of rent from salary was illegal as no notice had be n given to opposite party intimating him that petitioner intended to charge penal rent from him. In respect of latter claim the Labour Court held that since petitioner was posted at Kanpur from 1968 to 1976 he was entitled to house rent admissible to employees at Kanpur.

(2.) As regards finding in respect of house allowance during period petitioner was posted at Kanpur that does not appear to suffer from any error of law. On 23 March 1959, Railway Board had issued a circular which provided that:

(3.) As regards penal rent the liability to pay the the same cannot be disputed. Due to dearth of accommodation and to avoid inconvenience to other employees the provision was made. In 1972 it was modified by Letter No. F (X) 1-72/R N. 3/1, dated 27 April 1972, as existing provision of twice of assessed rent did not prove sufficient deterrent. Cities were divided in A, B1, B2 and C and penal rent was fixed at six, five, four and three times of the assessed rent for each class, respectively. And in remaining cases it was to be twice the assessed rent, la 197) the Board issued another circular, quotel below, in respect of the period for which a quarter could be retained :